"Linux distributor Novell has taken a shot at open-source rival Sun, saying the company's moves to open the code on its Solaris operating system had added little to the open-source community." A Sun employee responds: "I can't see how OpenSolaris creates any forks from any of the open source efforts and really does help many folks that do use it. Freedom is the ability to have choice, in addition to removing the restrictions of licenses. OpenSolaris accomplishes both, and works to become "true to the spirit".

Solaris to Linux is as Linux is to BSD. How come your are so quick to blast Sun but do not complain about the fact that Linux devs could lift as much code from BSD as they want, but BSD cannot get anything back from Linux. This is truly a case of the pot calling the kettle black. For every finger you point at Sun, you point four fingers back at yourself. I myself am very satisfied with the open nature of the Solaris kernel, moreso than the Linux kernel.

I dont get what your saying, if that was the case than the kernel would have BSD's iptable code. Why can BSD not take from the Linux kernel? as long as they make there code changes available back whats the problem?

Sun have always played a game with the opensource community, since when did they contribute to the Linux kernel?

Sun inspired the Linux kernel, it was a Sun server experience that Linus Torvalds tried to replicate. Even if Sun didn't submit any code used in the kernel, they did create lots of technology that is used in the Kernel, NFS, TCP/IP, etc...

You forgot to add that they had brought companies like staroffice and open sourced it as openoffice. Sun has been a very big contributer to Linux, and unforunately that companies like Novell see Sun through competative eyes rather than as a fellow contributer.

When the boot is on the other foot Sun is only too pleased to help. e.g. ZFS on OSX, dtrace on FreeBSD.

BSD can't take from the Linux kernel since then the BSD kernel would have to be released under the GPL. The problem is the stupid choice of license for GNU software.

WHAT game has Sun played with the open source community? Why would they contributed to the Linux kernel? Sun probably doesn't give a shit about Linux except that they want to be able to run Linux apps aswell. And it's not like Sun have taken any code from the Linux kernel, why would they?

Free software/open source is also about cross-fertilization, about being able to mix and match, about being able to use the best ideas to improve the system.

Because Linux distributions chose an incompatible license for Linux and other opensource applications this cross-fertilization has not occurred.

For GPL/LGPL projects, its a one way street - infact, its like a ban on same sex AND interacial marriages rolled up in one, "you can marry anyone you want, just make sure they're the same race and opposit gender as you!" - yeah, so much freedom in that <rolls eyes>

The day when all opensource code can be EVENLY shared, without a bias or overshooting of one licence over another, then we've made progress, until then, its nothing more than hype and propaganda spread by the stallmanites of the OSS world.

[EDIT] Source can come from BSD and MIT to GPL, but not from CPL to GPL, for an instance. The reason for this is the lack of protection of rights in BSD and MIT-licenses, and for the CPL it is due to the patent clause (in regard to GPLv2).

Agreed. Lately the sentiment that if it's GPL incompatible, it's inherently evil has been making a strong showing on OSNews.

Just because Novell can't use the code in their *product* doesn't make the code any less open. Especially when the license prohibiting the match is the GPL. They should be chewing themselves out publically for the licensing issues.

The last part is interesting, because that's what all politicians do. That's what all humans do.

Some just have a pragmatic agenda rather than an extreme agenda.

The only responsibility I accept, in regard to Free Speech, is responsibility before the Court.

Take a look at the CDDL (you can do that at opensource.org)
It grants fewer rights than GPL and BSD, and has more restrictions than GPL. Some of these restrictions may not be unreasonable, but none-the-less they do restrict people. CDDL is to GPL what GPL is to BSD.

[Edit] I should update my profile. It should say "nineteen years" and not "eighteen".

I thought the GPL arguments flared and burnt out last year. It just isn't that big of a deal, as the most important sharing occurs at the application level (i.e., Java Desktop/GNOME, Mozilla, etc.).

The biggest thing regarding the kernel licenses is that cutting and pasting code between kernels is pretty darn hard, unless they share the same historical code base (e.g., the BSDs). This transcends the licensing problem--it's an engineering problem.